Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Frater0082 wrote:Well I stand really strong on the belief that this mummy is Akhenaten just like I stand on the beliefs
That Queen Ankhesenamun was actually Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit(KV21A).
Horemheb's official years is counted as his rule not so etc.
Hopefully this new research could clear up the air on KV55.
No problem in having strong beliefs Frater. Just don't call them facts or say "I know for a fact"....and we can chat endlessly about the archaeological evidence for or against our respective beliefs"
Surely that is the crux of all of this, until something is demonstrably true, then it is either a theory or speculation. So any theory we have must stand the scrutiny of the accepted and currently known facts, there is nothing wrong with a new theory or a different interpretation, but it must be accompanied by something more substantial than just believing it to be true. Very often something that was once deemed to be correct at the time has been shown to be false and the latest (supported) evidence then becomes the currently accepted fact.
Some theories put forward by the likes of Nicholas Reeves are investigated (quite rightly so) because with some new previously unknown evidence such as the laser scan images he could postulate and offer good evidence that there 'may' be something behind the decorated walls of Tutankhamun's tomb. At that point it is still only his theory or indeed pure speculation on his part, it is not a fact, but his evidence seemed to stack up and therefore warranted further investigation. Had something been found it would have become fact and most of the previously accepted facts regarding this particular tomb would need to be re-evaluated. So IMO just to state something and say it is true, or it is a fact without any supporting evidence other than "I was there at the time" is hardly proof positive of a fact.
I am not knocking Frater and have openly said that I think he does some good research into his theories, but once you go down that road it does not come under the heading of History & Archaeology.
Frater0082 wrote:Well I stand really strong on the belief that this mummy is Akhenaten just like I stand on the beliefs
That Queen Ankhesenamun was actually Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit(KV21A).
Horemheb's official years is counted as his rule not so etc.
Hopefully this new research could clear up the air on KV55.
No problem in having strong beliefs Frater. Just don't call them facts or say "I know for a fact"....and we can chat endlessly about the archaeological evidence for or against our respective beliefs"
Pax?
you're making even more angry than I'm already am right now. Listen stop trying to put me in a bubble and writing me off because I will not sit here and take anymore of your crap.
If you want respect then you got to show it yourself, stop trying to right me off honey.
Frater, please calm down, Newcastle was merely saying that he is quite happy to debate anything with you of either an archaeological or spiritual nature as long as you stop claiming everything as being a 'fact', now stop ranting and stop playing the victim
Sorry, just can not visualize newcastle as a honey bunny. Your responses to legitimate observations Frater0082 are slowly pushing you into the unwashed group. Stay calm, stay connected.
Life is your's to do with as you wish- do not let other's try to control it for you. Count Dusak- 1345.
Speaking of Ankhesenamun. I've been thinking about her alot and the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the older one only acted as Coregent(after Meritaten's disgrace) but it was the KV21A mummy who was Tut's great royal wife.
Thus seeming how KV21A couldn't walk. The older Ankhesenpaaten acted in her favor thus I think all the depictions of Ankhesenpaaten are of the older one except the one where Tut is standing in a marsh and the young queen is handing him in what appears to be a lotus flower. I believe that she is someone completely different therefore is Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit.
Okay so while I was doing my research on the Amarna family and the few mummies that we have from that household, I noticed something quite spectacular...
Last post
It had dawned on me that perhaps Smenkhare was buried elsewhere perhaps in the valley of the king my spirit is telling me that is tomb is sealed.
My first my intial idea was that perhaps that Dmenk...
My second topic of today is Thutmosis whom I dubbed Thutmosis V. My reasons is because he was supposed to be the fifth Tuthmosis to rule Egypt. As the line of ascension goes a Thutmosis was next to...
Last post
Frater do you re read the posts you make before submitting them because some of them I find very difficult to understand? Please try to be clearer for us that are not so knowledgeable about ancient...
